inforcer_groups_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds the read-only label as reinforcement. Beyond annotations, it discloses behavioral details: the tenant identifier is resolved to the numeric Client Tenant ID before the request, and the result includes members. This is useful contextual behavior not present in the structured annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The tenant-resolution sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema, and 'Read-only' repeats an annotation, so it is not perfectly lean. Still, it is compact and readable with no wasteful filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output expectation (full detail, including members). It also explains tenant resolution behavior, which is an important operational nuance. It could additionally mention error or not-found behavior, but given the annotation coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the tenant identifier semantics almost verbatim from the schema and does not add meaning for group_id beyond 'including members' as an outcome. It provides no new parameter-level insight, but the schema is already complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get full detail for a single group, including members.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inforcer_groups_list by emphasizing 'single group' and the inclusion of members. The purpose is immediately recognizable and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied through 'single group' and 'including members,' suggesting this is for retrieving one group's full detail rather than listing groups. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like inforcer_groups_list or provides exclusion conditions, so the guidance is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.